However, the laptop's smaller design required a few more design compromises. For instance, the 8GB of soldered RAM is the only option; unlike the 15-inch model, there doesn't appear to be room on the logic board to solder on an additional 8GB. There's no discrete graphics chip, either. We'll definitely look into the performance more once we have a sample to review, but we suspect these limitations could push some potential users up to the 15-inch model.

Enlarge/ The 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro apparently has no room for a discrete GPU or more than 8GB of RAM.

The 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro uses an asymmetrical lithium-ion cell configuration for its battery. Two of the cells are easily removed with screws, though the remaining four are glued to the aluminum unibody shell, just like the 15-inch model. iFixit's Miro Djuric told Ars that the adhesive does seem slightly easier to work with in comparison to the strong adhesive on the 15-inch model.

In an interesting move, the battery on the 13-inch machine is not glued over the trackpad assembly, which makes it fairly easy to access and replace. Instead, Apple tucked the SSD module underneath the trackpad, connecting to the logic board with a ribbon cable.

Enlarge/ There's plenty of room underneath the trackpad for a much larger SSD module.

However, the space underneath the trackpad is large enough to hold a slim 2.5-inch form factor drive. Djuric noted that a 9.5mm SSD didn't quit fit, but "only by a smidge." A 7mm or 5mm drive could fit, though it would require a custom cable to connect to the logic board's SATA port. Still, such a solution may offer potentially less expensive SSD replacements.

Unsurprisingly, iFixit gave the 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro a 2/10 score for repairability. The drive module and trackpad are easier to replace, and the battery is "slightly" easier to work with, giving it a one point advantage over the 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro. However, everything is tucked inside with Apple's pentalobe screws, RAM is impossible to upgrade or replace, and the fused Retina display module is a pricey, integrated unit.

89 Reader Comments

On a more related note, unsurprising that the repairability score is so low. Thin is in, and that's always going to result in design choices that run counter to do-it-yourselfers (adhesive instead of screws, proprietary parts, etc.).

It's hard to know how limiting 8GBs of RAM might be in 3 years time, or if 16GBs of RAM could theoretically fit into the same space on this model in the near future. Also, I'm a little sceptical of the HD4000's performance on such a high-resolution screen. Game-wise, I'd imagine it will struggle with titles like Civ V and Batman: Arkham City, but I could be wrong and perhaps the smart-scaling will help out here anyway.

Thin is in, and that's always going to result in design choices that run counter to do-it-yourselfers (adhesive instead of screws, proprietary parts, etc.).

Yeah, but a glued-in battery and non-upgradeable memory are really unpleasant tradeoffs for 'thin'. I've been through two batteries in my current MacBook. I understand that newer batteries may be more reliable, but it's still a terrible part to make completely unreplaceable.

As for the RAM, Apple could have at least made a proprietary super-low-profile RAM module. People would have screamed 'proprietary' of course, but at least then there would have been an upgrade path. This really smells of forced obsolescence with saving space as the excuse.

The asymmetric battery config seems very strange to me. The only people who are replacing batteries in laptops are people who have dead batteries, but if you're only replacing two of the six dead cells, that's not much of a win. Apple might as well have just glued in the last two cells.

Thin is in, and that's always going to result in design choices that run counter to do-it-yourselfers (adhesive instead of screws, proprietary parts, etc.).

Yeah, but a glued-in battery and non-upgradeable memory are really unpleasant tradeoffs for 'thin'. I've been through two batteries in my current MacBook. I understand that newer batteries may be more reliable, but it's still a terrible part to make completely unreplaceable.

As for the RAM, Apple could have at least made a proprietary super-low-profile RAM module. People would have screamed 'proprietary' of course, but at least then there would have been an upgrade path. This really smells of forced obsolescence with saving space as the excuse.

Apple knows the vast majority of laptops are never opened/upgraded and they design with this in mind. Anyone who does have a problem is a slim margin that can be covered by their Apple Care support (like new batteries, screens, etc...)

It stinks for people who want to fix/upgrade their own equipment, but from a design perspective it's pretty smart. Business wise, it's brilliant.

Fire up VMWare Fusion or Parallels with 3 VMs hosting a front-end/SQL environment, Domain Controller, and a desktop client then you can find out right now how limiting a mere 8GBs of RAM is instead of waiting 3 years.

From my POV, Apple screwed the pooch on this point. You may as well purchase a MacBook Air if you are fixated on thin design as opposed to having a machine that costs more, but for the purposes of testing and having more performance, will quickly become obsolete.

8GB of RAM with a SSD is more than sufficient. But being able to upgrade the drive is a concern though.

Having had a 480GB OWC 6G SSD in my MBP for almost 12 months I wish I had not purchased an additional 8GB for a total of 16GB. When using a quality SSD the additional RAM provides only a small advantage in speed while I take a hit on battery life.The integrated graphics chip is also more than most people will need.

For 90% of consumers computer power has hit a critical threshold, where increased CPU and GPU speed does not provide tangible benefits. Going forward the HD is the bottleneck until the SSD is standard as it is with the MBA.

In the consumer market the MBP and the MBP Retina upgradability just aren't much of a concern.

This is not the 1990's when computers needed to be upgradable since they were always in need of more speed.

<snip>This really smells of forced obsolescence with saving space as the excuse.

Note: This not a dig or snark at Apple fans, just a personal observation. I used to kinda crow along the same lines but given how some segments of the population will drop dollars at almost any latest and greatest Apple product, I'm not sure this is the case. It seems Apple products are more often resold, or passed down, than upgraded like a lot of PCs are. They seem more bought for design and simplicity than for upgradeability. Once a generation or two passes, off it goes and a new product is bought. With the PC crowd there seems more interest in fanken-monstering the machine as it ages to keep it somewhat current for whatever purpose its being used for, or re-purposing for something else.

Fire up VMWare Fusion or Parallels with 3 VMs hosting a front-end/SQL environment, Domain Controller, and a desktop client then you can find out right now how limiting a mere 8GBs of RAM is instead of waiting 3 years.

Look, I don't disagree that I'd prefer more RAM: I have a 2011 Air with soldered on 4GB and I would love if it could have had 8GB instead.

But this is a HORRIBLE example. If you plan on running 3VMs plus the host OS, then DON'T BUY A FREAKIN' LIGHTWEIGHT LAPTOP.

I have my Air and it's awesome (and even runs Parallels with ONE VM fine) but I do my heavy lifting on my Mac Pro, and I can remote into it and do whatever I need as required.

If you have a light weight laptop, then it's fine. If you want a server, then buy a server.

It's hard to know how limiting 8GBs of RAM might be in 3 years time, or if 16GBs of RAM could theoretically fit into the same space on this model in the near future. Also, I'm a little sceptical of the HD4000's performance on such a high-resolution screen. Game-wise, I'd imagine it will struggle with titles like Civ V and Batman: Arkham City, but I could be wrong and perhaps the smart-scaling will help out here anyway.

But it's a beautiful machine.

8Gb modules are being tested by major NAND manufacturers, but they haven't hit mass production yet. I'd go with the next 6 months maybe? There isn't a huge demand besides these kind of laptops (or maybe there are people who want 16GB SODIMM's, I dunno)

You likely wouldn't run a game at full resolution either, it'd be scaled (and it looks pretty much how it would on a low resolution screen). I wouldn't run arkham city on this kind of laptop anyway though, really (and not only because it's not out on mac yet).

Personally, I went back to a PC laptop for the first time in 6 years last night. And having one screw to get access to get the back plate off which gives access to the ram, then 4 screws to take the harddrive out, DVD drive I think just slides out, I can see the CPU with the heatsink held on with a couple of screws, is a huge relief for someone who opened up a macbook pro 3 or 4 times. I do miss that trackpad though.

Fire up VMWare Fusion or Parallels with 3 VMs hosting a front-end/SQL environment, Domain Controller, and a desktop client then you can find out right now how limiting a mere 8GBs of RAM is instead of waiting 3 years.

I'd venture to guess that 99.5% of 13" MacBook Pro users are *not* going to be running in that kind of computing environment. If you are and you purchase low-spec'd machine to do it, well...I guess that's your own fault. Per Viggo Mortensen: "Seek life elsewhere."

This machine is perfect for light-to-medium duty work and everyday life and therefore most of the computer using world.

<snip>This really smells of forced obsolescence with saving space as the excuse.

Note: This not a dig or snark at Apple fans, just a personal observation. I used to kinda crow along the same lines but given how some segments of the population will drop dollars at almost any latest and greatest Apple product, I'm not sure this is the case. It seems Apple products are more often resold, or passed down, than upgraded like a lot of PCs are. They seem more bought for design and simplicity than for upgradeability. Once a generation or two passes, off it goes and a new product is bought. With the PC crowd there seems more interest in fanken-monstering the machine as it ages to keep it somewhat current for whatever purpose its being used for, or re-purposing for something else.

I don't know if that's a fair assessment of either Apple or PC users. PCs are more often disassembled or thrown away frankly because they're generally cheaper. People feel a lot better about throwing away a computer that cost them $400 than a computer that cost them $1500. Also, Macs do tend to age better than most Windows machines.

Most Apple users I know who are of any decent level of technical sophistication will upgrade their machines in some way, like increased RAM, larger HDD or replacing an HDD with an SSD before sending it down the familiar recycle chain. That's how I do it. My dad currently uses my Early-2008 MacBook Pro with an SSD and 8Gb of RAM (which is a lot for that machine).

If you're comparing technically savvy buyers of both platforms, you'll find most of them will do upgrades to their machines, it's just a matter of how much upgrading those machine can reasonably take. If you're talking about the general user who is uncomfortable even taking a screw out of their laptop case, then I'd think both of them will either pass their machines down, repurpose them or throw them away, with PCs being more likely to be thrown away.

As for the RAM, Apple could have at least made a proprietary super-low-profile RAM module. People would have screamed 'proprietary' of course, but at least then there would have been an upgrade path. This really smells of forced obsolescence with saving space as the excuse.

There's no lower profile than solder. Adding the furniture for a 'RAM module' adds some thickness, as well as increases the number of points of failure. I don't really like it (I used to retrofit my MBPs), but I understand it (and, for my rMBP 15" at least, I appreciate it).

I understand that newer batteries may be more reliable, but it's still a terrible part to make completely unreplaceable.

It's not completely un-replaceable, though. Just take it down to a local Apple Store, or call Apple Care to get a free box to ship it in and have it replaced. True, it's not user replaceable, but it can be replaced.

I understand that newer batteries may be more reliable, but it's still a terrible part to make completely unreplaceable.

The battery is replaceable. It's just not replaceable by the user. Bring it into an Apple store or send it away to Apple and they will put a new battery in it. This will of course cost more (parts + labor) than doing it yourself, but it IS possible.

Not an ideal situation, but a dead battery does not equal a dead MacBook.

"But this is a HORRIBLE example. If you plan on running 3VMs plus the host OS, then DON'T BUY A FREAKIN' LIGHTWEIGHT LAPTOP."

Again, Apple already has a "FREAKIN' LIGHTWEIGHT LAPTOP"....it's called the MacBook Air.

All I'm asking is for more scalability (does 16GB impose too much on the form factor)?

I agree—aside from the Retina display and slightly faster CPU, this offers little advantage over the 13" Air. There's no discrete GPU, and no quad-core processor options. Looking at the 256GB drive option, too, which costs $1999, and now you're only $200 away from the low-end 15" rMBP, which has a larger screen, discrete GPU, and quad-core processor.

Fire up VMWare Fusion or Parallels with 3 VMs hosting a front-end/SQL environment, Domain Controller, and a desktop client then you can find out right now how limiting a mere 8GBs of RAM is instead of waiting 3 years.

From my POV, Apple screwed the pooch on this point. You may as well purchase a MacBook Air if you are fixated on thin design as opposed to having a machine that costs more, but for the purposes of testing and having more performance, will quickly become obsolete.

I'm very happy with my decision to go with the latest "regular" 13" MBP. I upgraded the RAM to 16GB for mere $79 (I do have a dev/VM/DB excuse, but at this price one doesn't need any!). Also the pitiful 5400 rpm stock drive gave way to a 512GB SATAIII SSD for $399.

Sure, I don't have the hi-res display, but I actually like to be able to watch a DVD or rip a CD!

New hotness may be beautiful, but I want practical (and cost effective - thanks to 3rd party upgrades).

As others have pointed out - for sexy thinness we've already had the Air range, for Pro features (that to me include power AND expandability) this new Retina range seems to cripple the classic Pro models. I wouldn't mind if the classic Pros dropped Firewire in favor of HDMI.

It's not that new. How many people upgrade their laptop after the initial purchase? Generally you'll see stuff like someone buying the base model laptop and a new stick of RAM and maybe a new drive to get around the outrageously expensive price the OEM charges for those same upgrades. After that, I doubt many laptops ever see a single upgrade. What we're really concerned about here is repairability. When the fan dies after 3 years, how much is it going to cost to fix it? You can save a lot of money by fixing things like that yourself, which is why iFixit is so useful. Laptop hard drives are also notoriously unreliable, and SSDs have surprising reliability issues as well. By far the most common component failure on a laptop is the battery, they just suck after a few years, and this is where Apple's design is a problem. Most other parts of the laptop are fairly reliable, although some (the screen) are fragile and may need to be repaired due to user damage.

I do know it, and you missed the point. "Most people" will not buy this product, nor will the "minority" of people (developers, QA testers, technicians, etc) who desired a smaller workhorse and could tolerate lesser specs than the 15" model but insisted on more memory than the MacBook Air. I'm "assuming" this would've been the target market, as "most people" would just buy the MacBook Air if they wanted to do everyday tasks.

These are already very powerful machines that may not require beefing up in a typical replacement cycle (ca 3 years). And mobile computing is not only about more storage or RAM. It is a balanced way all components work together. Desktop repalcements could be beefed up.

If you think a Mac of this configuration still requires upgrading, then no doubt you may want an equall upgradeable iPad. Doesn't make sense.

Interesting debate over the power and potential uses of this MBP. To me this one is a "retina MBA," not MBP. I know they are calling it a Pro but the light weight, integrated graphics, and non-upgradeable construction make me think of it as another MBA.

Fire up VMWare Fusion or Parallels with 3 VMs hosting a front-end/SQL environment, Domain Controller, and a desktop client then you can find out right now how limiting a mere 8GBs of RAM is instead of waiting 3 years.

That doesn't sounds like it would be a common use-case for a 13" laptop.

How many upgrades their laotops? We upgraded about 40 Macbooks and Macbook pros to 8 GB and SSDs and that makes a 4 year old machine pretty snappy and the user happy. And it's a cheap way to get a couple if years more out of them.Four years ago I could see that SSD and more than 4 GB RAM would be an option in the future. I really don't any such obvious upgrade path for the current models. You may call me on it in four years but I think 8 GB will suffice, even then. For most of my users that is.

"But this is a HORRIBLE example. If you plan on running 3VMs plus the host OS, then DON'T BUY A FREAKIN' LIGHTWEIGHT LAPTOP."

Again, Apple already has a "FREAKIN' LIGHTWEIGHT LAPTOP"....it's called the MacBook Air.

All I'm asking is for more scalability (does 16GB impose too much on the form factor)?

I agree—aside from the Retina display and slightly faster CPU, this offers little advantage over the 13" Air. There's no discrete GPU, and no quad-core processor options. Looking at the 256GB drive option, too, which costs $1999, and now you're only $200 away from the low-end 15" rMBP, which has a larger screen, discrete GPU, and quad-core processor.

Interesting debate over the power and potential uses of this MBP. To me this one is a "retina MBA," not MBP. I know they are calling it a Pro but the light weight, integrated graphics, and non-upgradeable construction make me think of it as another MBA.

I've been out of the game for a while, but to me it sounds like they're trying to dress up an iBook as a PowerBook, and charge the same premium for it. I guess I'm just really having a hard time, as others are, wrapping my mind around the low end of their laptop offerings nowadays.

But yeah, the "Pro" moniker is supposed to carry a certain meaning in their product line, and if nothing else the lack of a discrete graphics option has me thinking it's misapplied here.

EDIT: I suppose the construction and form factor may still justify a premium, but looking at specs this one just sticks out in the MBP line to me.

"That doesn't sounds like it would be a common use-case for a 13" laptop."

I'm not arguing that it's a common-use case; Apple has historically been about either creating a new segment or targeting a specific niche with each announcement. I'm arguing that a 13" MBP is pointless unless it is meant to target people with a desire for more performance beyond those provided in the MBA with a smaller form factor than the 15" MBP; 8GB doesn't cut it. Apple historically offered distinct products towards those seeking distinct "common use" cases what are generally considered "desktop replacements" or "everyday use". This model fails to distinguish itself in both regards and confounds users as towards what purpose this model is ideally suited. Okay, if I'm anal-retentive and must have Retina, I'll buy this...that's it. They could have introduced that in the existing MBA line (as they did with the MBP) and people would be happy. In this incarnation, it isn't a workhorse or a "desktop replacement" so it shouldn't be called a MBP.

"Interesting debate over the power and potential uses of this MBP. To me this one is a "retina MBA," not MBP. I know they are calling it a Pro but the light weight, integrated graphics, and non-upgradeable construction make me think of it as another MBA."

My point, exactly. For this reason, Apple will have a hard time moving this unit.

"That doesn't sounds like it would be a common use-case for a 13" laptop."

I'm not arguing that it's a common-use case; Apple has historically been about either creating a new segment or targeting a specific niche with each announcement. I'm arguing that a 13" MBP is pointless unless it is meant to target people with a desire for more performance beyond those provided in the MBA with a smaller form factor than the 15" MBP; 8GB doesn't cut it. Apple historically offered distinct products towards those seeking "common use"; . This model fails to distinguish itself in both regards and confounds users as towards what purpose this model is ideally suited. Okay, if I'm anal-retentive and must have Retina, I'll buy this...that's it. They could have introduced that in the existing MBA line (as they did with the MBP) and people would be happy. In this incarnation, it isn't a workhorse or a "desktop replacement" so it shouldn't be called a MBP.

"Interesting debate over the power and potential uses of this MBP. To me this one is a "retina MBA," not MBP. I know they are calling it a Pro but the light weight, integrated graphics, and non-upgradeable construction make me think of it as another MBA."

My point, exactly. For this reason, Apple will have a hard time moving this unit.

Your initial argument was poor, I think, but your overall point is spot-on.

EDIT: Between price point and specs, I'm seeing no reason other than the display to seriously consider this as an option.I'd feel drawn either to the Air, or a 15", pretty much every time. And I say this as somebody who owned and until it was recently stolen still used a 12" PowerBook.